In order to assess the effect of physical dependence, they injected rats with morphine into two separate regions of the brain: one which causes physical dependence, one which doesn't. They find that both regions cause dependence, implying physical dependence is not a necessary condition for dependence:

Thus, at least one rewarding consequence of opioids does not involve the dependence mechanism; this result confirms the view of several investigators that physical dependence is not a necessary condition for opioid reward (3). It remains possible that relief of withdrawal distress can add to the rewarding effect of morphine when systemic drug intake is prolonged (14), but the existence of a primary rewarding effect independent of any relief of withdrawal stress suggests the need to deemphasize dependence in definitions of addiction and questions the utility of treatment programs aimed at simply alleviating withdrawal discomfort.

or on the climate science issue, what percentage of data and publications do you believe are 'more or less garbage'? how are you assessing this as garbage? lack of replicability? lack of falsifiability? p-hacking?

the reason one would have to review science is precisely because research can be flawed. It's indeed only when you treat science as a religion that you can interpret critique of particular research as a critique of the scientific method as a whole.

pumpkin

yes lol, if the science doesn't match up with real life testing then the science is incorrect.
the science does this itself years after something has been copied by everyone else attempting to look smarter than the other monkeys.

how existence of flawed research is argument for superiority of personal anecdotes over scientific method? Show results of both in free distinct disciplines and compare. Since you claim it the burden of proof is on you.

A menacing post slithers

how existence of flawed research is argument for superiority of personal anecdotes over scientific method? Show results of both in free distinct disciplines and compare. Since you claim it the burden of proof is on you.

_aded

how existence of flawed research is argument for superiority of personal anecdotes over scientific method? Show results of both in free distinct disciplines and compare. Since you claim it the burden of proof is on you.

i've claimed it, serac just so happened to provide the research.
it's like a one-two punch just unintentional.

plus, i favor real life encounters and instances far more than whatever science one might present, this is why there's a marked disconnect between the current elites and the proletariat as the narrative on the ground becomes ever more distant from the narrative being peddled by the 1% who run all the things.

but if that's not doing it for you, no problem.
time tests ideas better than anything else we have available to us, so i'll wait.
when it hits MSM that the rehab clinics are thieving from the insurance companies i won't say "i told you so."

pumpkin

Do you assume all scientific research is done as simulation, never in situ?
How organized research isn't deciphering real life? How on earth we can have medical technologies and had battled epidemics?
Do you mean that its fragmentary not holistic? Selection of factors to check their weight in a given hypothesis allows for greater precision in capturing the phenomenon. Ok seems I have to make arguments for you to have something I can argue. Lul.

_aded

Do you assume all scientific research is done as simulation, never in situ?
How organized research isn't deciphering real life? How on earth we can have medical technologies and had battled epidemics?
Do you mean that its fragmentary not holistic? Selection of factors to check their weight in a given hypothesis allows for greater precision in capturing the phenomenon. Ok seems I have to make arguments for you to have something I can argue. Lul.

think again losers

even in a "rigorous" field like computer science, about 50% of publications is more or less garbage. In economics – maybe 80%. I don't know what it is in social sciences, but it's quite naive to treat academic research as religion, and "trust" "scientists". Sample size + academic paper doesn't amount to anything unless you can personally critique and verify the contents of the research. Argument from authority – very much pervasive in this thread – applies as a fallacy even (or maybe especially so) when it comes to academia.

I think it's a mistake to call valuing science an appeal to authority though. I'm not claiming that scientists are automatically right. I'm saying if you have a pronounced and vocal view on something, you should at least address scientist's conclusions. Not because they're automatically right, but because they've spent enormous resources arriving at answers and it'd be weird if they had absolutely nothing to show for it.

Okay wait no I take it back, it is an appeal to authority, but that's because... they're literally recognised authorities on the subject. If I want advice on how to build a house I ask a builder. It doesn't make sense to dismiss expertise when it's freely available. I'm not suggesting blind adherence, but at least hear them out if you're going to push any particular narrative.

In the absence of any reference to science, broadly, everyone just substitutes their preferred beliefs in for that expertise. Left or right. This thread (and many others) are split along party lines (aka preferential thinking) until someone gets into the science. You're willing to take these dot points at face value because you largely agree with them, at least to the degree that you'd share them and want to talk about them - and all us lefties have a knee jerk reaction to it because it comes from a right wing pundit - so we demand evidence.

I think it's kind of insane that from a birds eye view, it looks like you and aiyanah are aligned in your views, when I'm pretty damn sure that's not the case.

In order to assess the effect of physical dependence, they injected rats with morphine into two separate regions of the brain: one which causes physical dependence, one which doesn't. They find that both regions cause dependence, implying physical dependence is not a necessary condition for dependence:

Thus, at least one rewarding consequence of opioids does not involve the dependence mechanism; this result confirms the view of several investigators that physical dependence is not a necessary condition for opioid reward (3). It remains possible that relief of withdrawal distress can add to the rewarding effect of morphine when systemic drug intake is prolonged (14), but the existence of a primary rewarding effect independent of any relief of withdrawal stress suggests the need to deemphasize dependence in definitions of addiction and questions the utility of treatment programs aimed at simply alleviating withdrawal discomfort.

So there're two different systems of addiction, and this has been found to be the case across a lot of drugs.

This complicates cessation, because you have two systems fighting to bring you back into the fold, rather than just the one. When you quit a drug cold turkey, you've beaten physical dependence once you're no longer experiencing withdrawals.

But then relapses occur. This is because of the second system of dependence. There's a reason that getting away from drugs requires lifestyle change. This is to prevent psychological dependence from reemerging. An ex-addict will be susceptible to relapse if they start hanging around their old haunts or socialising with their old drug-using friends, despite having completely beaten their physical dependence. This is because (IIRC) drugs mess with your reward system, ingraining powerful habitual drives.

It is common for people to manage one aspect of dependence while falling victim to the other.

I have experienced a very light form of this with caffeine. I need caffeine to function, but I can feel unfulfilled even with a high dose if I take it in pill form. This is because my habit is for cold caffeinated and carbonated caffeine drinks.

So really it's an argument for addicts to be held solely accountable for their addictive behaviour, and that attempts to help them actually harm them. There might be merit to such an argument. We've probably all seen addicted people abuse the trust of those who care for them, and use that trust to dig themselves a deeper hole. But it's not established and shouldn't be treated like it has been.

Someone with conservative leanings provided an unsubstantiated argument in favour of conservative views (mah personal responsibility! The poor are poor because they deserve it!) - and people who think differently are asking for a source before we write off these members of our society.

The reason that we should be skeptical of this unsubstantiated argument, is that the practice of psychologists does not reflect this. The literature, as far as I know, does not reflect this. There's no reason that a very large number of intellectually gifted individuals who are dedicated to this question would somehow miss the point this hard. It requires a ridiculous amount of incompetence or conspiracy for this to happen, and while this is possible, there's no explanation of this assumption. It's just super convenient to assume that all the scientists got it wrong when they disagree with you.

So yes, there are political stakes. It's not some harmless comment. People can come away from this conversation seeing addicts differently, and whether it is Serac or the lefties who are wrong, this could have real world consequences.

I think that given the inherent diversity of beliefs that arise within any given society and the propensity for mobility that anti-multiculturalism is unrealistic. Take any form of music or technology or philosophy throughout history and you'll see that it emerged from a meeting and melding of different cultures.

Take, for example the hindu-arabic numeral system, which we use today. Great example of the benefits of multicultiralism, no? Well, not really. It's not like the reason we adopted it was that we opened our borders and imported a large number of hindus and arabs. That numeral system was imported to Europe by Fibonacci after having studied for some time in Algeria. So let's stop and think for a moment: he didn't import, say, fundametalist-Islamic rituals like honor killings, or the compulsory wearing of the burqua for women. He went there and took something specific from that culture which he though was interesting. Would the result be as good in the alternative scenario?

Or take Greek philosophy. Obviously, Europe imported a lot of this philosophy during the renaissance, and it is arguably one of the most important set of ideas ever created in human history. But the reason we can talk "Greek philosophy" is that Greece was an extremely unique society, with a particular set of ideas and values, well-defined borders and clear separation from other societies. Do you think classical Greece would benefit from, say, mass immigration from Scandinavia at the time – when Scandinavia was a primitive bronze-age civilization? <-- that's not a rhetorical question, btw, I would be genuinely interested in your answer to that.

And this is what I ultimately think: good things happen when cultures get to develop separately. Then we can borrow things from each other that we think are good, and benefit that way. Geographically emplacing a foreign culture into another one, on the other hand, leads to conflict, disorder, and degradatation. I think ultimately, people, when not having grand abstract principles of multiculturalism forced upon them by politicians and "intellectuals", are most happy when they live in orderly, harmonious societies where there is agreement on values.

Furthermore, if one looks at the history of Europe for example, it is policies which accommodate pluralism that have led to more peaceful societies. For example, public policy for religious freedom is an inherently multicultural policy, this effectively stopped the protestants and catholics from being at each other's throats. Why do you think europe stopped all the internal fighting at some point?

Which period are you talking about? I would be interested if you could provide concrete examples where a society went from being homogeneous to multicultural and benefited from it – with the multicultural part being a necessary condition for the improvement. History is rife with examples where very bad things happened when multiple cultures were forced to live within mutual state borders, so counterexamples to that would be good.

Omg wow imo

Ugh way to go to take a massive thought dump and just let me sift through it point by point Serac. You simplify everything so much just to make your very tired “I wish there were less muslims coming here” point it’s hard to know where to start. Okay let’s start with plupymple’s statement first and foremost, he says that multiculturalism is « at odds with common sense. »

First we need to define our terms, as you seem to be using “multiculturalism” falsely to mean “no border control and countries flooded with muslims omg omg.”

I’m going to define multiculturalism in its broadest sense as « the allowed existence of differing cultures within a same country/state or legislative system. A “culture” includes (but is not limited to any single element) language, religion, food habits, dress habits, art, traditions, beliefs, ethnicity etc.”

I’m saying it’s at odds with common sense to be against this, because it’s always happened and it always will. It’s not even a question of being for or against it, because it’s just a fact of societies. You can’t isolate people from each other unless you have a very authoritarian oppressive government in place. Anyway, I’m just going to pay attention to your post now.

Take, for example the hindu-arabic numeral system, which we use today. Great example of the benefits of multicultiralism, no? Well, not really. It's not like the reason we adopted it was that we opened our borders and imported a large number of hindus and arabs. That numeral system was imported to Europe by Fibonacci after having studied for some time in Algeria.

Are you seriously arguing that a numeral system named the “hindu-arabic" numeral system is NOT a product of a heavy and prolonged exchange between different cultures ?” You’re ignoring the so called "Islamic golden age" which is the product of many invasions followed by an obsession with assimilating and compiling all the thoughts of other cultures and living alongside them in more stable periods. Intellectuals and workers of all nationalities flocked to the large prosperous cities.

The sudden Islamic conquest of Persia in the 640s drove a wedge between the Mediterranean and Indian traditions, but scholarly transfer soon resumed, with translations of both Greek and Sanskrit works into Arabic during the 8th century. This triggered the flourishing of Abbasid-era scholarship centered in Baghdad in the 9th century, and the eventual resumption of transmission to the west via Muslim Spain and Sicily by the 10th century.[citation needed]

Direct contacts between the Muslim and Chinese worlds were marked by the Battle of Talas in 751 in Central Asia. Muslim communities are known to have been present in China as early as the 8th century CE, especially in commercial harbours such as Canton and Hangzhou.[3]

These are all historical examples of multi culturalism (as in different cultures co-existing) and influencing each other in often positive ways (though of course, many of them were the results of warfare, which I do not think is good.)

Or take Greek philosophy. Obviously, Europe imported a lot of this philosophy during the renaissance, and it is arguably one of the most important set of ideas ever created in human history. But the reason we can talk "Greek philosophy" is that Greece was an extremely unique society, with a particular set of ideas and values, well-defined borders and clear separation from other societies.

-> Wrong wrong wrong, gross over simplification. the reason we can talk “Greek philosophy” is roughly because Muslims started massively invading everywhere around 7th century I think (before that the Greeks has invaded everywhere you know Alexander Hellenistic period and all that), anyway, they happened to notice a load of old interesting looking texts lying around and began working on translating them (them and all the Christians around at that time too, and then the texts got transmitted through muslim communities in both spain and Italy, which ensured their transmission into Europe. Otherwise the notion that Greece itself was a unified nation with well defined borders is clearly wrong. For a while it was a bunch of individual cities and there were heavy exchanges when they weren't actively at war with each other and trying to assimilate each other for one reason or another. Athens was heavily multicultural (even without counting the slaves, a number of which were released and subsequently integrated society as citizens.) Some of Plato's dialogues contain characters from other cities portrayed as having interesting new perspectives.

Do you think classical Greece would benefit from, say, mass immigration from Scandinavia at the time – when Scandinavia was a primitive bronze-age civilization? <-- that's not a rhetorical question, btw, I would be genuinely interested in your answer to that.

Depends, what is “mass”. Because I mean if “mass” is a loaded term that denotes “too much for the infrastructures in place entailing the collapse of the cities into chaos” then your question doesn’t have much point. What is this “mass” ? What percentage of population is it ? Anyway, if they learn the language the Greeks might be able to make some interesting linguistic discoveries about Scandinavian languages, or have their culture enriched by learning about their mythology, or boat making (I’m assuming they needed pretty good boats to get there) or I guess maybe they might be good at music or whatever. Materials, weaving etc.

And this is what I ultimately think: good things happen when cultures get to develop separately. Then we can borrow things from each other that we think are good, and benefit that way.

Yes I’m advocating multiculturalism, not abolition of separate cultures AND ALL BORDERS (also impossible to enforce.) Don't straw man me. Multiculturalism is often force for good, within reason. For example, tolerance cannot tolerate intolerance. That gets rid of the dreaded burqas and honor killings you see. Murder being generally frowned upon and all.

Geographically emplacing a foreign culture into another one, on the other hand, leads to conflict, disorder, and degradatation. I think ultimately, people, when not having grand abstract principles of multiculturalism forced upon them by politicians and "intellectuals", are most happy when they live in orderly, harmonious societies where there is agreement on values

I’m very happy to be able to eat Thai food, go to an English pub, watch French, American and Armenian films, go to an African market, hear arabic music, talk to a Spanish, Nigerian, Sengalese, Russian person, walk on Roman roads, read Greek books etc, you get my point. I'm happy to live in a large multicultural city. Also, cultures pop up within a state anyway. Punks won’t talk to skinheads or whatever, it happens independently of nationalities. You can tout orderly harmony all you want but people are chaotic and what you need is a common shared value of a decent amount of tolerance, such as not being actively racist, not killing people because they disagree with you etc etc. Otherwise the only way for your “orderly harmony” is gonna have to execute itself is through repeated purges of some kind.

Which period are you talking about? I would be interested if you could provide concrete examples where a society went from being homogeneous to multicultural and benefited from it – with the multicultural part being a necessary condition for the improvement. History is rife with examples where very bad things happened when multiple cultures were forced to live within mutual state borders, so counterexamples to that would be good.

That’s the point yo, no society EVER went from being “homogeneous”. YOU give me examples of totally homogeneous societies for chrissake. What’s this weird “pure” society you have in mind I don’t get it. Ohgosh. let us godwin this as well seeing as you’ve handed me this point on a platter. Serac, give me some concrete examples of multicultural societies (so basically nearly all of them) that became (or tried to become) homogeneous societies plz. How does this pan out generally?

I, on the other hand, as I mentionned already, can give you examples of policies that accommodated the inherent multicultural aspect of the country and improved life for everyone. Well I was thinking of the Edict of Nantes at the time when I wrote that post, but I should think that any piece of legislation selected from this page ought to be a good example of multicultural policies restoring peace and harmony :

under Roger II was characterized by its multi-ethnic nature and religious tolerance. Normans, Jews, Muslim Arabs, Byzantine Greeks, Lombards, and native Sicilians lived in harmony.[25][26][not in citation given] Rather than exterminate the Muslims of Sicily, Roger II's grandson Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen (1215–1250) allowed them to settle on the mainland and build mosques. Not least, he enlisted them in his – Christian – army and even into his personal bodyguards."

As for what immigration does to a country on an economic level, I'll just leave this open letter signed by 1470 economists of various political leanings (including some nobel laureates) to Donald Trump on the benefits of immigration (and policies which accept multiculturalism.) You'll notice that it starts off with some bullet points, which I'm sure you'll enjoy.

TLDR; Serac, you took the word “multiculturalism” and twisted its meaning to promote some kind of hysterical viewpoint over muslim immigration. Please try and clear up your terms before affirming radical political viewpoints, and please avoid simplifying everything just to regurgitate such basic ideology. I’m showing you that the word actually points to a pragmatic necessity in terms of peaceful political decisions. I would never claim that societal infrastructures should be flooded by people it cannot afford to take in, or people who do not share the basic values of tolerance and rules such as not murdering, torturing, subjugating etc; if you want this conversation to be interesting, don’t bother trying to imply that.

This whole post was arguing from a practical point of view, a realist stance, if you want peace and progress and economic growth, mutliculturalism (with constraints as with anything) is necessary and valuable. I linked you to historical and contemporary examples. If you are interested however, I can show you why I think we have a moral duty to take immigrants in to the best of our ability, this would be the "idealistic" and more value based side of the issue.

A menacing post slithers

First we need to define our terms, as you seem to be using “multiculturalism” falsely to mean “no border control and countries flooded with muslims omg omg.”

I’m going to define multiculturalism in its broadest sense as « the allowed existence of differing cultures within a same country/state or legislative system. A “culture” includes (but is not limited to any single element) language, religion, food habits, dress habits, art, traditions, beliefs, ethnicity etc.”

That's exactly the definition I've had in mind all along, which is why I wrote "Geographically emplacing a foreign culture into another one". I've used muslim migration as an example because that's the most prominent case were I live currently. If the migration was a bunch of old-school christians who would put me before the Inquisition for saying that that the earth revolves around the sun, I would use them instead.

I’m saying it’s at odds with common sense to be against this, because it’s always happened and it always will. It’s not even a question of being for or against it, because it’s just a fact of societies. You can’t isolate people from each other unless you have a very authoritarian oppressive government in place.

People isolate themselves all the time – in fact that's usually the norm when they are free to do so – even when they live within the same city (e.g. chinatown in NY). And I would say it's quite natural. It's pleasant to know that people around you are like you and share your values and customs. We can obviously tolerate other cultures within reasonable bounds, but there's nothing nonsensical about cultural isolation. But more importantly, when you think about it, multiculturalism is highly nonsensical: if you share values with people around you, then pretty much by definition you are of the same culture. If my neighbor, on the other hand, believes for example that homosexuality is a sin, or that women should be subservient to men, then I have an enemy living next door.

Are you seriously arguing that a numeral system named the “hindu-arabic" numeral system is NOT a product of a heavy and prolonged exchange between different cultures ?” You’re ignoring the so called "Islamic golden age" which is the product of many invasions followed by an obsession with assimilating and compiling all the thoughts of other cultures and living alongside them in more stable periods. Intellectuals and workers of all nationalities flocked to the large prosperous cities.

you have to differentiate between two things: 1) the flow of knowledge, science, art, goods etc between countries, and 2) physical movement of large number of people. With regards to the numeral system, I'm talking about something specific: how it was introduced essentially unilaterally by one scholar to Europe. That's clearly an example of the first case. You're talking about something completely different here – how it was originated in the islamic world to begin with.

The same goes for the Hellenistic thing. You're talking about the flow of knowledge between cultures, which I'm fully in favor of like I mentioned earlier. If you argue for this as multiculturalism, you would have to tell me to what degree people were not segregated physically within that empire. I'm not claiming they were segregated, because I don't know the history of that, but the example here doesn't go into that at all.

And the same again goes for the Greek philosophy part. I know that muslims were originally the ones to preserve the works of the greeks. Once again that's an example of what I'm talking about above. They preserved it because they found value in it. They didn't merge the two cultures together just for the fuck of it and then later figured: hey, we can actually learn something from these people. Think about how different that is to the concept of "multiculturalism" as we think of nowadays: mixing people together is the end in itself, without any preconditions. We don't say, for example here in Sweden, "islamic immigration is great, because they bring us a lot of knowledge, technology and wisdom on social issues". We just say "it's great".

Depends, what is “mass”. Because I mean if “mass” is a loaded term that denotes “too much for the infrastructures in place entailing the collapse of the cities into chaos” then your question doesn’t have much point. What is this “mass” ? What percentage of population is it ? Anyway, if they learn the language the Greeks might be able to make some interesting linguistic discoveries about Scandinavian languages, or have their culture enriched by learning about their mythology, or boat making (I’m assuming they needed pretty good boats to get there) or I guess maybe they might be good at music or whatever. Materials, weaving etc.

So you're saying that it would make sense only if the greek culture could have benefited from such immigration? In that case we agree.

I’m very happy to be able to eat Thai food, go to an English pub, watch French, American and Armenian films, go to an African market, hear arabic music, talk to a Spanish, Nigerian, Sengalese, Russian person, walk on Roman roads, read Greek books etc, you get my point. I'm happy to live in a large multicultural city.

Why do you need to live in a multicultural city to do all those things?

That’s the point yo, no society EVER went from being “homogeneous”. YOU give me examples of totally homogeneous societies for chrissake. What’s this weird “pure” society you have in mind I don’t get it. Ohgosh. let us godwin this as well seeing as you’ve handed me this point on a platter. Serac, give me some concrete examples of multicultural societies (so basically nearly all of them) that became (or tried to become) homogeneous societies plz. How does this pan out generally?

the old you're-a-nazi-because-you-oppose-multiculturalism trick, eh? I've never favored cultural cleansing (hell, one of my best friends is a muslim guy). I'm opposed to synthetic multiculturalism enforced top-down by bureaucrats. If two societies sees a mutual benefit in merging somehow, that's great. But it's not great unconditionally. Whether multiculturalism is good, depends on the cultures. You seem to agree with this – based on your answer to the scandinavia example – because in your answer, the greeks could benefit from such immigration.

TLDR; Serac, you took the word “multiculturalism” and twisted its meaning to promote some kind of hysterical viewpoint over muslim immigration. Please try and clear up your terms before affirming radical political viewpoints, and please avoid simplifying everything just to regurgitate such basic ideology. I’m showing you that the word actually points to a pragmatic necessity in terms of peaceful political decisions. I would never claim that societal infrastructures should be flooded by people it cannot afford to take in, or people who do not share the basic values of tolerance and rules such as not murdering, torturing, subjugating etc; if you want this conversation to be interesting, don’t bother trying to imply that.

I guess only you are allowed to make assumptions about other people's opinions and project all kinds of extreme views on them. We agree that multiculturalism is good if cultures merge as a part of an organic and mutually beneficial process. We also agree that the exchange of knowledge, science, goods and technology between societies is beneficial. But if you claim that this is what "multiculturalism" means nowadays, I don't think you're being intellectually honest. Nowadays it is being enforced top-down by politicians as an axiom, in the form of physical emplacement of people, and to be accepted as good unconditionally.

Omg wow imo

I am slightly confused however. Can I have examples of it being enforced top down and examples of what the term actually means nowadays seeing as I'm apparently not clued in on this ? You already know what I assume it to mean as I gave a definition. I argued according to this def and said I would so I'm not sure I can be accused of intellectual dishonesty. Perhaps we are not consuming the same media and you have a different perspective. If you will clue me in on the real problem I am sure I can be more pertinent.

I wasn't quite saying it would only make sense if the Greeks benefited from the culture, no. I would even possibly argue that to some extent the Greeks might even have a moral duty to take the scandinavians in if they are refugees, even if it makes things a bit harder. However, it would indeed be absurd if the Greeks were unable to take in said immigrants and their infrastructures and hospitals were flooded to the point of innefectiveness, which is I guess a possibility. I was giving the positive perspective, you used the word "mass" which I interpret in any case as "excessive" so your question is effectively "do you want excessive immigration/think this is good" to which of course the only answer is no. I'd need more context to evaluate, I only said the results MIGHT be highly positive. I would need to know what "mass" means and the size of the receiving city. It"s all logistics and resources.

the old you're-a-nazi-because-you-oppose-multiculturalism trick, eh? I've never favored cultural cleansing (hell, one of my best friends is a muslim guy). I'm opposed to synthetic multiculturalism enforced top-down by bureaucrats.

Oh gimme a break you said "orderly harmonious society", that's one lexical step away from ARYANNPURITYHEILHEILHEILHEIL XD. + u have a black and white old timey avatar XD. I don't in fact think you are a nazi. But omg you kind of have to see that the Godwin point is sort of legitimate, how do you curtail multiculturalism ? What are the concrete consequences of rejecting it? How is the rejection applied? Also when you say :

If my neighbor, on the other hand, believes for example that homosexuality is a sin, or that women should be subservient to men, then I have an enemy living next door.

Well that's splendid, does this mean we can get rid of old Christian people as well ? Here in France they all paraded against gay marriage and frequently protest abortion rights, if you're telling me there's a legitimate way I can get rid of these people I'm all ears.

Where is anyone "forcing" cultures to merge together ? With the muslims and the greeks, communities set themselves up all throughout history and frequently cohabited a same space, culture evolves, a kind of third culture occurs from the natural melding of the two. It's how most of history happened. You're trying to isolate the circulation of ideas from the influx of actual people that was necessary for it. I gave you several exmples of actual communities being set up in foreign countries as a stepping stone for the communication of the texts and such. It happens the whole time. My parents are immigrants, my culture is different from the one I was born in. I think it's a psycopathic and fucked up minority of people who want to do honor killings. I think you can be a muslim immigrant and be a fully functioning member in a western society. That's all. I'm cool with it.

_aded

an argument against multiculturalism, ignoring that thugs and wastes of skin get to potentially go live in europe and america and earn millions by most african economies standards and terrorise the locals there en route to becoming locals themselves.

consider that the most skilled/gifted individuals get taken out of developing nations where they could have impacted the culture generationally, all to be a cog in another system that doesn't need any uplifting. i'm one step short of calling it a human zoo but the football academies in north africa do that for me.
you might say that some of these people go back to their countries of origin, that isn't most of them though, and what might they do once their creative prime has long left them in an environment that could have used it.
on the other hand, in favor of multiculturalism by current definitions, "trickle down" is real so progress there eventually translates to progress here.

the issue of multiple religions mixing is always up for contention, for instance the muslims aren't compatible with any place that has yoga pants or bare limbs as casual ware.
you might say they should change but they're following the word of god, you should sincerely change from their pov.

think again losers

an argument against multiculturalism, ignoring that thugs and wastes of skin get to potentially go live in europe and america and earn millions by most african economies standards and terrorise the locals there en route to becoming locals themselves.

consider that the most skilled/gifted individuals get taken out of developing nations where they could have impacted the culture generationally, all to be a cog in another system that doesn't need any uplifting. i'm one step short of calling it a human zoo but the football academies in north africa do that for me.
you might say that some of these people go back to their countries of origin, that isn't most of them though, and what might they do once their creative prime has long left them in an environment that could have used it.
on the other hand, in favor of multiculturalism by current definitions, "trickle down" is real so progress there eventually translates to progress here.

the issue of multiple religions mixing is always up for contention, for instance the muslims aren't compatible with any place that has yoga pants or bare limbs as casual ware.
you might say they should change but they're following the word of god, you should sincerely change from their pov.

_aded

the locals i'm talking about are in europe and america lol, being terrorised by shipped in immigrants who can't be sent home because their home country is allegedly too dangerous so the leftist constructed law ensures they have to stay regardless of crimes committed, at least in europe that's the case.
and the current cultural push is to "ignore them", as is noted by people fighting about letting off criminals because they're immigrants while ignoring the legal/illegal context or even the crime/s committed.

In my opinion one of the most pertinent points so far. The thing is though, can you argue that people should not be allowed to go and live in another country just because they would benefit their own more if they stayed? Can you argue that their right to move should be restricted ?

Also I'd have to read more about it, but there is some argument it's not entirely nefarious in it's consequences and possibly beneficial, it's not clear cut. The wikipedia article alone raises some very positive points, which are in appearance linked to a large array of research and sources to back them up.

The whole thing about muslims not being compatible with yoga pants thing is a non-issue for me though, they come here under the understanding that yoga pants are allowed, same as christians in western society are "incompatible" with a society that is okay with gay marriage or sex before wedlock, basic rule is do what you like but mind your own business, and the muslims I know follow this just fine. If any nut attempts to take it upon themselves to curtail this right others have, then they are criminals. If they don't want to live in a society which allows this then they are free to leave. Simple as that.

Omg wow imo

@Serac Look man, any time I raise a Godwin point against you, (I've done it before) I swear to god it's tongue in cheek, Godwin points are known to be caricature straw manish things which I'm entirely conscious of. I'm just winding you up. What I was getting at with it though, is that I want YOU to tell me exactly what your stance against multiculturalism (as you define it, seing as we're apparently talking at cross purposes because of the meaning I assign to it which apparently misses the contemproary signification of it) entails in actual political decisions. You've been asking me to provide concrete examples of multicultural policies throughout history that had a beneficial effect and I have done so. Now I want you to provide me with examples of anti-multicultural policies throughout history that had a beneficial effect (no need to mention that the methodology of the execution of the policy must be not morally repugnant either.) It's only fair, you attack the concrete, real world consequences my statements, I defend myself and give examples, now you have to defend the real consequences of your stance.

Here are some guidelines to orient your answer : Do you extradite people or simply refuse entry? On what cultural basis do you refuse people entry? If you already have people who hold these views within your own "culture", which is most likely do you extradite them ? Seeing as culture is likely a continuum of elements and that many people are a mix of various cultures, where do you draw a line?

In my opinion one of the most pertinent points so far. The thing is though, can you argue that people should not be allowed to go and live in another country just because they would benefit their own more if they stayed? Can you argue that their right to move should be restricted ?

Also I'd have to read more about it, but there is some argument it's not entirely nefarious in it's consequences and possibly beneficial, it's not clear cut. The wikipedia article alone raises some very positive points, which are in appearance linked to a large array of research and sources to back them up.

The whole thing about muslims not being compatible with yoga pants thing is a non-issue for me though, they come here under the understanding that yoga pants are allowed, same as christians in western society are "incompatible" with a society that is okay with gay marriage or sex before wedlock, basic rule is do what you like but mind your own business, and the muslims I know follow this just fine. If any nut attempts to take it upon themselves to curtail this right others have, then they are criminals. If they don't want to live in a society which allows this then they are free to leave. Simple as that.

short answer is no, you can't stop people moving if they want to.
long answer is something along the lines of incetivising that they do then use their new found wealth in some manner in their country of origin, but details would have to be hammered out cause it would make no sense for a simple mcdonalds worker to have to do that just because they wanted to live abroad and give their own children the same opportunities afforded to the northern hemisphere.

i agree that it's not all bad though, in terms of "skilled individuals" and "dreamers" moving abroad, even without some incentive to encourage worthwhile investment back home for the wildly successful few, we still have the natural forces of the world to make that progress afforded to the 1% reach the rest of the population, timelines pending ofc.

in regards to muslim expectations, one really has to look to what people on the ground are experiencing.

general narrative is they come in, occupy a part of a city or suburb, and make it theirs, whatever that entails.
it's fair game to say you personally know people not doing this, as do we all personally know people in all walks of life not doing something bad, but why are there even people who feel correct in thinking this way and furthermore are implementing it?
this isn't just with the muslim migrants to france but also with the african migrants who pretend to sell bracelets to tourists while mugging them.
it's a short step from someone telling you how to run your suburb to telling you how to run your country.
dude says it himself, "here we do things like in our home countries" his home isn't france is it?

just to note, i am in favor of people crossing borders if it means they then have to assimilate to the culture they are going into and not the culture having to assimilate to them.
i could never see this being demanded of japan or russia for instance, you'll likely get shot in the latter for suggesting cultural changes as an immigrant.
yet i see this being demanded of some of the worlds leading economies and cultures and it simply doesn't work like that.

Omg wow imo

Yes I live in France I am aware of this stuff. The thing about France (and no doubt other countries) is that the first and second generation migrants are de facto segregated in ghettos from the rest of society. I'm pretty sure that problems of radicalization leading to unethical cultural behaviors such as in that video you post occur because of this segregation and vicious cycle of lack of resources, bad education and criminality. I heard for example that canada has active policies of producing mixed income districts to promote some assimilation and social mobility and they have comparatively hardly any problems with ghettos at all. The muslims I know are well intergrated and able to succesfully pursue careers and financial independence as they have been afforded good schooling and opportunities do well. They don't "come in and occupy a suburb" as you put it so much as have little opportunity to live anywhere else. So I don't think this is a problem with the fact that they are muslim exactly (though of course it takes on a muslim "form" if that makes sense), I think it's bad policies that do not entail successful assimilation. Of course multiculturalism supposes that different cultures live TOGETHER and assimilate to some extent, I don't deny this at all, so segregation de jure or de facto is not really even multiculturalism I'd argue even. I also don't think they would ever "take over the country" as you would need for more than half the population to be from another culture for this to happen and the sheer number of people coming into the country there in that scenario is kind of absurd.

I actually live in a district in Paris which is one of the most multicultural districts in the city if not France itself. Assimilation here is good I would say, the district is very nice to live in, with a large park and the canal running through it, it's fairly cheap, a cultural hub with lots of exhibitions and events of all kinds. It's got a jewish population, a west african population, a moroccan and Tunisian population, a Chinese population and of course a french population. It's probably my favorite district because there is so much going on and so much to do. At the risk of sounding like a total "libtard" I genuinely enjoy the diverse aspect of it for many reasons I could elaborate on if anyone was interested. (which I doubt they are so I won't XD)

A menacing post slithers

I want YOU to tell me exactly what your stance against multiculturalism (as you define it, seing as we're apparently talking at cross purposes because of the meaning I assign to it which apparently misses the contemproary signification of it) entails in actual political decisions.

I think Sweden is a good example. Here, multiculturalism is literally an official policy enforced by the state. During the 70s, they "explicitly rejected the ideal ethnic homogeneity and the policy of assimilation (source)". The last part is the most troubling: when you don't care about assimilation, you encourage segregation (both geographically and in terms of values). You get sub-populations who are not interested in education, contributing to the society, or following the norms and laws of the country, and who develop their own bases of morality.

Funnily enough:

A 2008 study [in Sweden] which involved questionnaires sent to 5,000 people, showed that less than a quarter of the respondents (23%) wanted to live in areas characterised by cultural, ethnic and social diversity.

Harvard professor of political science Robert D. Putnam conducted a nearly decade-long study on how multiculturalism affects social trust.[54] He surveyed 26,200 people in 40 American communities, finding that when the data were adjusted for class, income and other factors, the more racially diverse a community is, the greater the loss of trust. People in diverse communities "don’t trust the local mayor, they don’t trust the local paper, they don’t trust other people and they don’t trust institutions," writes Putnam

Now I want you to provide me with examples of anti-multicultural policies throughout history that had a beneficial effect (no need to mention that the methodology of the execution of the policy must be not morally repugnant either.)

I think it should be clear by now that I'm not as much interested in enforcing anti-multicultural policies as I am against enforcing pro-multicultural policies. I think nations should preserve their sovereignty, cultures, customs and norms, and not reject these at the expense of the wellbeing of their own citizens. If someone wants to immigrate to a country, they should show respect for that country's values and foundations, show a willingness to assimilate oneself to the existing culture, and contribute to that society in a positive way.

_aded

higs is too far gone, the left has assimilated her successfully.
assuming that all this attention to detail can be maintained when attempting to execute multicultural cities, then sure there's nothing wrong with it.
being in paris though, one should have no tolerance for refugees camping out in the streets or people bringing the culture they are running away from with them, just my opinion. there's also a litany of safety issues to mull over across time but that's everyone's fight essentially.

a note on canada, i find such a society undesirable, i can picture far too much movement into the country in the coming decades and the world will be keen to see how long such an economy holds up, the awkward social issue of transgenderism and how it comes across as a fad to the youth (long ranging consequences, lemme just say i wouldn't want to raise kids in canada because of this), and the ever shrinking indigenous culture of canada is set to become an issue too in the coming decades, what relevance that has on a nation has yet to be observed to my understanding in the current context.

granted i might be living in canada in the future if my fiance has her way.

Omg wow imo

So I'm brainwashed npc. Hokay How do you know for sure that I'm the one who's brainwashed and not you though ? Also can the brainwashee among us still be saved or is it too late ? Should we simply go our seperate ways :'( ?

Yeah I've met those people camping out in the streets, a lot of them seemed nice to me. No one goes through all that shit and difficulty unless the place they're leaving is really crappy. That's what I've noticed. You know what the definition of a "refugee" is right ? It's someone who leaves their country because they fear for their life or fear being persecuted, if you want to undermine the reason they leave, at least use the word "migrant", though of course, the line is sometimes difficult to draw. I definitely think it's best that they are taken off the streets and something is worked out to place them and get them started (this is what happened every time one of those ecampements cropped up so...) I think countries and cities definitely have the ability to sort this out. I guess when you say no tolerance though you mean something else ?

No one goes through all that shit and difficulty unless the place they're leaving is really crappy. That's what I've noticed. You know what the definition of a "refugee" is right ? It's someone who leaves their country because they fear for their life or fear being persecuted

From watching interviews with migrants living on the streets in Paris, a lot of them seem very disappointed with the conditions they ended up in. It seems many of them had expectations of wellbeing which were not really met.

I think a lot of the migration from Syria is well-founded, because the death tolls there are quite severe. But, taking for example migration from Afghanistan, which comprises the second-largest chunk of the migration after Syria, one could argue that the conditions in Kabul are not that much worse than, say, Detroit:

_aded

So I'm brainwashed npc. Hokay How do you know for sure that I'm the one who's brainwashed and not you though ? Also can the brainwashee among us still be saved or is it too late ? Should we simply go our seperate ways :'( ?

Yeah I've met those people camping out in the streets, a lot of them seemed nice to me. No one goes through all that shit and difficulty unless the place they're leaving is really crappy. That's what I've noticed. You know what the definition of a "refugee" is right ? It's someone who leaves their country because they fear for their life or fear being persecuted, if you want to undermine the reason they leave, at least use the word "migrant", though of course, the line is sometimes difficult to draw. I definitely think it's best that they are taken off the streets and something is worked out to place them and get them started (this is what happened every time one of those ecampements cropped up so...) I think countries and cities definitely have the ability to sort this out. I guess when you say no tolerance though you mean something else ?

i said the left has assimilated you, if this were a trump issue and the suggested policy or stance was good and you were against it, then you would be an npc.
that aside these countries those people are leaving aren't getting better, so would this operation go on for eternity?
think for instance of how the "west" was developed wars and all, now give those people an option to leave when times get tough instead of fixing the problems. you could have the liberian mandela as your neighbor, placed here to end a civil war, granted there will always be "another" as the construct is iterative but timelines get skewed regardless.
he's got a way out though, "why bother doing that when i can earn in euros across the pond."
if you're a leftist then the journey from village to ferry would also be worth investigating but perhaps i am interpreting bipartisan priorities incorrectly here.

and cause i'm sure it'll be mentioned in regards to war and refugees and foreign aid, those who lose to the side that received foreign aid will forever hold a grudge, no telling when it will reach a breaking point but that detail is worth remembering, likewise to the side that wins due to foreign aid cause things weren't really rectified internally. uncertain if that makes sense, but, i am observing this beginning to come to a head in the rural areas of south africa, but i'm getting off topic.

_aded

best be wary trusting any news articles about what terrorist cells are doing, pretty sure it should be public knowledge that over half a billion dollars has been spent on making al-quada propaganda by now out of the pentagon's budget.
also that those terror cells are armed by the people they're allegedly fighting against...i digress.

Omg wow imo

i said the left has assimilated you, if this were a trump issue and the suggested policy or stance was good and you were against it, then you would be an npc.
that aside these countries those people are leaving aren't getting better, so would this operation go on for eternity?
think for instance of how the "west" was developed wars and all, now give those people an option to leave when times get tough instead of fixing the problems. you could have the liberian mandela as your neighbor, placed here to end a civil war, granted there will always be "another" as the construct is iterative but timelines get skewed regardless.
he's got a way out though, "why bother doing that when i can earn in euros across the pond."
if you're a leftist then the journey from village to ferry would also be worth investigating but perhaps i am interpreting bipartisan priorities incorrectly here.

and cause i'm sure it'll be mentioned in regards to war and refugees and foreign aid, those who lose to the side that received foreign aid will forever hold a grudge, no telling when it will reach a breaking point but that detail is worth remembering, likewise to the side that wins due to foreign aid cause things weren't really rectified internally. uncertain if that makes sense, but, i am observing this beginning to come to a head in the rural areas of south africa, but i'm getting off topic.

I argue for whatever I think is right based on the evidence presented to me and the values I hold, Saying I am "too far gone" and "assimilated" obviously implies that I cannot think for myself or that I am blindly adhering to some party line (actually what's hapening is I'm just disagreeing with you). Every war has refugees and people who stay and fight and people who stay and get killed. world war II cause loads of displacement. This is no different. I can't particularly say I blame the people who wanted to leave. Furthermore, the situation in these wars is so complex and there are so many factions in play all vying for power I'm not sure if it would be clear who I would want to join in most cases or who I could ifght with towards some kind of common good. Starting an army is no easy task. In any case, there are people who stayed and fought and the mandela types tend to be people who would want to stay anyway, I mean I'm sure Mandela could have decided to try and make his way to europe at that time as well, it's not like immigration was this totes unheard of thing before all this. We're getting a big influx because there are a lot of unstable places right now.

best be wary trusting any news articles about what terrorist cells are doing, pretty sure it should be public knowledge that over half a billion dollars has been spent on making al-quada propaganda by now out of the pentagon's budget.

I'm linking to news sites about public bombings and attacks, not Al-Quaida propaganda (fake or real) encouraging people to live the high life as a terrorist or telliing them not to or whatever. Just public bombings.

A menacing post slithers

@higs
you're giving examples of suicide bombings etc, which obviously exist. You're giving examples of bombed buildings, which we also know exist. But you have to look the extent to which these occurrences are localized. Kabul, for example, is a very large city. I'm not too impressed with cherry-picked examples, I'm more interested in statistics.

Omg wow imo

It's not cherry picked, I literally typed in the name of the city on google news and these were the recent articles. It looks more like bombings are a really common occurrence, that's just the news for those places in the past week or something. I also did the same thing for Detroit and the negative news was one report of two people having been shot one of which was dead, the rest was cultural events and happenings of a neutral kind. The news coming out of a place is highly indicative of what it's like to live there. If I lived in a city where in the past month there had been more than three bombings, I would probably get the fuck out of there pretty fast.

Your site on the other hand doesn't seem that reliable :

"This section is based on surveys from visitors of this website. Questions for these surveys are similar to many similar scientific and government surveys. "

Sample size is limited to people who decided to visit the website, could be all sorts of reasons why it is not a rigorous study, though it may provide some interesting data. The questions mark the intensity of "worrying" about having one's car stolen. Not actual likelihood. Doesn't pose "worrying about bombings" or "next elections may not go through due to terrorism" worries either. You just can't put a country screwed up by war on the same level as an American city with higher poverty levels than others, the comparison is impertinent. It's not the same problems, incidentally, I would personally definitely choose to live in Detroit rather than Aleppo or Kabul.

nevertheless, it remains my point that news articles on individual incidents cannot really give a good representation of what it's like there. Obviously, since armed conflict is the only reason we ever hear about Syria, most of the news about Syria will be about armed-conflict incidents.

A quick calculation on Syria:

If we take Aleppo, that's a city of 1.85 million people: According to wikipedia, the death toll in Aleppo since the start of the civil war is about 30,000. By eye-balling the graph of the causalities, about 1/4 or so are civilians? i.e. about 7500 civilians over the course of 8 years or so, i.e. about 1000 per year. So the civilian mortality rate from the war specifically is about 0.5 per 1000 residents in Aleppo. In Detroit, the mortality rate is around 10 per 1000 residents according to this source, i.e. about 20 times higher.

Quite likely I've misread some statistics somewhere, but this is the sort of analysis which is relevant – not how many pictures of bombed buildings we can find.

Omg wow imo

Wait a second, are you now comparing general mortality rates (including natural causes such as being old or heart disease etc) and deaths due to active killing and bombing in a civil war ?

Please return when not drunk thank u

Ps: You would also with this be ignoring other effects of war such as injury, destruction of property, displacement, loss of job, general economic instability etc. Nothing instill fears in a population on the same level as heart disease rates tho

A menacing post slithers

@higs that's correct, that Detroit number is from all causes, whereas the 0.5/1000 in Aleppo is the additional mortality rate you get from the war. Nevertheless, would you say that an additional 0.5/1000 is a huge number? That's 5% of the Detroit rate.

edit:
according to stats from the CIA world factbook, the Syrian death rate peaked at about 6.5 per 1000 in 2014 – i.e. well below the overall Detroit rate

Omg wow imo

So what's your point ? Citizens of Detroit should move to treat their heart disease but Syrians should stay and suffer bombs and war? have you ever had a terrorist attack in your city ? After the Bataclan attack the whole of Paris was terrified, you could see it in everyone's faces as you walked through the street and if you sat in café's that's all you could hear about. Despite rationally knowing that you're more likely to die in a car attack than at the hands of a terrorist or a bomb, the latter are far more terrifying. So the heart disease rates in Detroit really are impertinent in instilling a climate of fear. I don't really know why I'm indulging this discussion on how the Syrian war didn't make stuff that bad tbh but whatever, if you really need me to explain the obvious, that it's worse than detroit, I will do so.

I'll start off with your data. I'm not convinced by the indexmundi thing (wth does it say cia world factbook ??), it looks like a better source than the first site you linked, but it seems to me it can't have it right that the death toll in Syria is currently inferior to the death toll in Sweden, France and Iceland, that just can't be right. Maybe the Syrian death rate is really hard to get :

Data specifically for the battle of Aleppo on the other hand shows that in fact the civilian casualties for the battle are at about 75 % of total casualties, I urge you to read the rest though, also has other details on how conditions were made unlivable, for example how a kilo of sugar cost 21$ at one point.)

"The 2016 offensive cut off the city from food supplies, and last time eastern Aleppo was reached with significant humanitarian supplies before the Syrian re-capture was the beginning of July in 2016.[274] The Syrian government, aided by Russian army, used war planes to systematically bombard hospitals in the rebel-held areas of the city.[275][276] By the end of November 2016, no functional hospitals were left, and over 20,000 people were displaced by the fighting"

Thirdly, like I already said, you're not accounting for the rest of the other terrible stuff war does that isn't just death, justifying people's status as refugees, selected from the article you linked:

"11.5% of the country’s population have been killed or injured since the crisis erupted in March 2011, the report estimates. The number of wounded is put at 1.9 million. Life expectancy has dropped from 70 in 2010 to 55.4 in 2015. Overall economic losses are estimated at $255bn (£175bn)."

(Incidentally I checked life expectancy in Detroit, it's at about 78 years old accoridng to google results.)

"In all, 45% of the population have been displaced, 6.36 million internally and more than 4 million abroad. Health, education and income standards have all deteriorated sharply. Poverty increased by 85% in 2015 alone."

That's almost half the population that's lost their home. Imagine poverty increased by 85% in a year in your country.

"Consumer prices rose 53% last year. But suffering is unevenly spread. “Prices in conflict zones and besieged areas are much higher than elsewhere in the country and this boosts profit margins for war traders who monopolise the markets of these regions"

(ISFP)

What is called the "Arab Spring" happened because when the 2008 crash happened the big banks pushed inflation into other countries to lower their losses on speculative trading. This inflation made it so people in the middle east could not afford food and so they blamed their governments. It began in Tunisia where a cart vendor set himself on fire because he could not make enough money to live.

Revolution happened and wars happened and the Deep State made the wars worse. Obama assassinated Gaddafi and ISIS took over Lybia. They want Assad gone because he is allied with Iran so they helped the opposition and ISIS (created from Saddam's generals). All the escalation of these wars are the fault of the U.S. military DeepState.

Europe has no plan to integrate refugees. They keep most of them in tents instead of housing. When the wars are over the majority will leave Europe. People are called racist for pointing out increased crime. It is not a optimal handling of the situation.

As long as Terrorism and Dictatorships exist in the middle east it will not safe to stay there. There is no plan to fix Failed States. The DeepState desires Failed States to exist.